From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@wp.pl>, David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
Alexander Aring <aring@mojatatu.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sched: cls: enable verbose logging
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 22:31:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpVjNOt4g1PY3VOJJPn=XOSE3G3ZqUHEC-H+M66GRDCMTg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180514204725.GT4977@localhost.localdomain>
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:30:53PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
>> <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Currently, when the rule is not to be exclusively executed by the
>> > hardware, extack is not passed along and offloading failures don't
>> > get logged. The idea was that hardware failures are okay because the
>> > rule will get executed in software then and this way it doesn't confuse
>> > unware users.
>> >
>> > But this is not helpful in case one needs to understand why a certain
>> > rule failed to get offloaded. Considering it may have been a temporary
>> > failure, like resources exceeded or so, reproducing it later and knowing
>> > that it is triggering the same reason may be challenging.
>>
>> I fail to understand why you need a flag here, IOW, why not just pass
>> extack unconditionally?
>
> Because (as discussed in the RFC[1], should have linked it here) it
> could confuse users that are not aware of offloading and, in other
> cases, it can be just noise (like it would be right now for ebpf,
> which is mostly used in sw-path).
>
> 1.https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg223016.html
My point is that a TC filter flag should be used for a filter attribute,
logging is apparently not a part of filter. At least, put it into HW offloading,
not in TC filter.
I know DaveM hates module parameters, but a module parameter here
is more suitable than a TC filter flag.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-15 5:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-13 20:44 [PATCH net-next] sched: cls: enable verbose logging Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-05-13 20:44 ` [PATCH iproute2-next] tc: flower: add support for " Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-05-18 16:06 ` David Ahern
2018-05-14 20:27 ` [PATCH net-next] sched: cls: enable " David Miller
2018-05-14 20:30 ` Cong Wang
2018-05-14 20:40 ` David Miller
2018-05-14 20:47 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-05-15 5:31 ` Cong Wang [this message]
2018-05-15 19:43 ` Jakub Kicinski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAM_iQpVjNOt4g1PY3VOJJPn=XOSE3G3ZqUHEC-H+M66GRDCMTg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
--cc=aring@mojatatu.com \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=kubakici@wp.pl \
--cc=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.